arXiv:1702.00559v2 [physics.bio-ph] 13 Feb 2017
Possible scenarios of DNA double helix unzipping process
Oleksii Zdorevskyi, Sergey N. Volkov
Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, NAS of Ukraine,
14-b Metrolohichna Str., Kiev 03143, Ukraine
[email protected]
February 14, 2017
Abstract
Analysis of single-molecule micromanipulation experiments of DNA unzipping process
shows some features of the force-distance curve, namely two consequent plateaus in the
area of ∼12 − 14pN dependent on nucleotide sequence structure, as well as peaks appearance in the plateau area, to which it was not paid essential attention earlier. Using
atom-atom potential function method the estimations of Watson-Crick base pairs opening energies are made. On the basis of this results two possible scenarios of the DNA
double helix unzipping process are proposed. According to the first scenario DNA unzipping takes place slowly and as equilibrium process, with small difference between two
plateaus on the unzipping curve. In this case firstly base pairs transit into the ‘pre-opened’
metastable state along the ‘opening’ pathway and then open along the ‘stretch’ pathway.
Our estimations show that an important factor for the realization of this scenario is the
existence of double-stranded DNA coil in the unopened part of DNA. The second scenario
is characterized by higher opening force. In this scenario base pairs open directly along
the ‘stretch’ pathway as non-equilibrium process. The conditions of the first scenario
realization show that it can play a key role in the understanding of the DNA unzipping
in vivo during transcription and genetic information transfer processes.
1
Introduction
The appearance of single-molecule micromanipulation methods [1] made it possible to investigate biological macromolecules, considering it as a separate system. These methods use optical
tweezers [2], microneedles [3], atomic force microscopes [5]. Single-molecule micromanipulation
methods allow to study processes such as DNA stretching, bending, twisting [4, 6, 7] and the
DNA double helix nucleic base pairs opening [3, 8, 15–19]. Among them especially important
is the process of sequential separation of nucleic bases in DNA base pairs under the action of
external forces (DNA unzipping), which plays a key role in the genetic information transferring
process.
At the early studies separation of bases in DNA double helix nucleic pairs (bp) was identified
as the process of denaturation of macromolecules under the temperature influence. This process
is called DNA melting [9–11]. In this case the process of base pairs opening is not sequential
and the denaturation takes place in DNA sites which have different size and location. Firstly
base pairs in A·T-rich sites open, and then - in G·C-rich sites. In contrast to the melting
1
process, single-molecule micromanipulation methods make it possible to investigate the process
of sequential opening of DNA base pairs in the same way as it takes place in cell in vivo.
In the physical experiment of the unzipping process, which is carried out by the singlemolecule micromanipulation methods, the dependence of the opening force on the opening distance is measured [3,15–21]. For λ-phage DNA at small pulling velocities (∼40nm/s) the strand
separation starts to take place after reaching by the force of a some critical value (∼13pN ). For
this force value two consequent plateaus at ∼13pN and ∼12pN are observed and force peaks
∼1pN in the plateau area occur (‘sawtooth’ nature of the DNA unzipping process) [15]. For
big velocities (≥1µm/sec) the plateau has a bigger value and hysteresis is observed [17].
The DNA unzipping process has been studied theoretically [3,16,21–23]. By Bockelmann et
al. [3, 16] a model of the unzipping process which takes into consideration the opening energies
of base pairs and the elastic energies of single strands is proposed. The authors managed to
obtain the critical force value of ∼13pN . The peaks occurrence in the plateau area is considered
as a molecular ‘stick-slip motion’ that takes place because of a heterogeneity of macromolecule.
But this model does not describe the difference between two plateaus on the λ-DNA unzipping
curve. Probably, the mechanism of the unzipping process can differ from that described in the
works [3, 16]. In the present work it will be shown that the reason of its difference can be the
base pair opening along different pathways.
The different pathways of base pairs opening are studied in the paper [23] where twocomponent model describing the DNA unzipping process is proposed. According to this model
the DNA unzipping process takes place due to the creation of conformational bistability in the
system under the external force action. As a result the process of the base pairs opening flows
cooperatively.
The goal of the present work is to determine the physical processes that occur in DNA
macromolecule during the DNA unzipping and to describe the experimental data on the qualitative and quantitative level. In Sec.2 the data from the single-molecule micromanipulation
DNA unzipping experiment is analyzed and some features of the opening force-distance dependence that have not been explained in the previous theoretical models are determined. In
Sec.3 using the atom-atom potential functions method A·T and G·C base pairs separation energies along different pathways are estimated. As the result it is determined that during the
unzipping process DNA base pairs can open not only along the ‘stretch’ pathway, but under
some conditions they can firstly transit into a metastable state along the ‘opening’ pathway,
and then fully open along the ‘stretch’ pathway.
2
Experimental data analysis
In the single-molecule micromanipulation experiments the λ-phage DNA double helix is studied [3, 15–20]. It has a length of 48 502 bp. One end of one strand is attached to the substrate,
and another strand from the same end - to the ball, which is held with a glass microneedle
or optical trap. The scheme of the experiment is shown on Fig.1. From the other end double
helix is not fixed and it forms a tertiary structure in the shape of a coil. Ball is moved with
a constant speed, thus consequently opening the double helix. Than the dependence of the
applied force on the displacement of the ball is measured.
Let us analyse the curve structure (Fig.2) obtained in the [15, fig.3]. On the curve fragment
B - C sharp increase of the force almost without changing of the distance is observed. This
corresponds to the tension increase of the whole system until force reaches a certain critical
2
Figure 1: Scheme of the single-molecule micromanipulation DNA unzipping experiment [3, 15–
20]. F - the force that acts on the area situated between the double-stranded DNA (dsDNA)
coil and unzipping fork and its components Fx and Fy .
value, which corresponds to the bases separation in DNA nucleic pairs.
On the curve fragment C - D base pairs opening takes place. This fragment consists of
two plateaus. In the first half of the double helix opening occurs on the average force value of
∼13pN , and in the second half on ∼12pN (Fig.2). As seen, there are two different plateaus
with a small difference in the critical force value.
It is known that the first half of λ-DNA consists mainly of G·C pairs, while the second half
is dominated by A·T pairs. Therefore, the average opening force of the first half of λ-DNA will
be close to the opening force of the G·C pair, and in the second half - to the opening force of
the A·T pair. So, the unzipping of these two parts of λ-phage DNA should take place under
different opening force. Really, as it is seen from the experiment the value of force difference is
∼1pN (Fig.2).
In the paper [3] a model for the DNA unzipping process is proposed. In the framework of
this model, the force of the base pairs separation in the unzipping process of DNA double helix
can be calculated as:
Epair + 2Eel
,
(1)
F =
l
where Epair is the the total energy of base pairs opening in the macromolecule, Eel is the
extension energy of one single strand, l - total extension of the single strands. From freelyjoined chain model: Eel ≈0.3kcal /mol , l = 0.95nm [3]. In the paper [3] fitting parameters for
A·T and G·C opening energies are used (see Tabl.1) and the average opening force of a polymer
with 50% content of A·T and G·C pairs is estimated. It coincides with the experimental value
(∆F, Tabl.1).
However, if we estimate by this formula the opening forces of one pair in A·T- and G·Ccontaining polymers separately (FAT and FGC respectively), and calculate their difference ∆F =
3
Table 1: Free opening energies of A·T and G·C base pairs, calculated in the corresponding
works, the difference between the opening forces of A·T and G·C base pairs ∆F = FGC − FAT
and the averange opening force Fav = (FGC + FAT )/2. ∗ fitting parameters in [3], ∗∗ opening
energies of A·T- and G·C- containing polymers, averaged over the nearest neighbors [13], ∗∗∗ our
estimations using (1), ∗∗∗∗ calculated in [3].
[3]
[12]
[13]
[21]
Conditions (t, o C;NaCl, mM) 25o C, 150mM 25o C,103 mM 37o C, 15 mM 25o C, 103 mM
GAT , kcal/mol
-0.77∗
-1.55∗∗
-0.31∗∗
-1.09∗∗
∗
∗∗
∗∗
GGC , kcal/mol
-1.7
-3.23
-1.45
-2.08∗∗
∗∗∗
∆F, pN
7
12
8
7
Fav , pN
13∗∗∗∗
22∗∗∗
11∗∗∗
16∗∗∗
Figure 2: Schematic figure of the experimental dependence obtained in [15]. Our estimations
reveal that two plateaus have a value of ∼12pN and ∼13pN and peaks have the height of ∼1pN
and the length of ∼100bp; small peaks on the ascents of big peaks.
FGC −FAT , we will get a value which is large enough and does not coincide with the experimental
difference between two plateaus of the value of ∼1pN (see. Tabl.1). If as Epair parameters in
formula (1) we take base pairs opening energies obtained from the DNA melting experiments [12,
13, 21] and then average them over all nearest neighbors, we will get a value of ∆F , which is
∼7 − 12pN and does not match the experimental data.
Note, in the works [12,21] the average opening force values Fav = (FAT +FGC )/2 are inflated
as well. As energy data calculated from the results of the DNA melting experiment, using of
these energies may be incorrect for the unzipping process. Also experimental studying or short
A·T and G·C DNA hairpins shows the difference ∆F ≈10pN [8, 14] which is also close to the
∆F , obtained from the melting process studying (Tabl.1). These facts can reveal that the
base pair opening in the processes of DNA melting and unzipping of short DNA hairpins can
take place along the one pathway but in the process of λ-phage DNA unzipping at low pulling
velocity along the another pathway.
Let us consider the plateau region in more detail. There are big peaks with the height
∼1pN and with the length ∼100bp up to 1000bp (Fig.2). It should be noted that the height of
4
the peaks reduces significantly to the end of the unzipping process.
On the ascent of these peaks even smaller peaks ∼10bp and up to 0.1pN are observed
(Fig.2, [15, fig.6]). The values related to the size of small peaks are approximate because of the
lack of resolution of available data. Shape of small peaks is characterized by a negative slope,
as if a ball which is pulled, occasionally starts to move back. The negative slope can correspond
to the position fluctuations of the ball in the optical trap. In the paper [21] frequency filters
and short linkers that connect the DNA strands with ball and substrate are used allowing to
avoid small peaks. On the descents of big peaks there are no small peaks. This means that the
ball position fluctuations on ascends of big peaks arising occur because of the growth of tension
in the system and descents of big peaks are followed by a decrease in tension, so there are no
fluctuations on the descents of big peaks. This shows that the process of base pairs opening
flows cooperatively on the descends of big peaks. As the small peaks are not related to the
physical mechanism of the DNA unzipping they will not be discussed in the present paper any
more, so ‘big peaks’ will be called simply ‘peaks’.
Shape of the peaks presented on Fig.2 is uniform and periodic, however, due to the heterogeneity and aperiodicity of the coil-like tertiary structure of the λ-DNA double helix, the
height and length of these peaks may be different from one to the other.
In the paper [40, p.548] it is noted that when force is less than 10pN , opening of base pairs
may not occur at all, but when force is > 17pN , base pair opening takes place very quickly and
peaks on the obtained force-distance dependence reflect nucleotide sequence of the double helix.
These opening force values can be obtained by increasing of the pulling speed [3, 16–19]. At
speeds greater than 1µm/s unzipping process becomes to be non-equilibrium and a hysteresis
is observed [17].
The process of the nucleic base pairs opening can be considered as a process of translational
motion of the unzipping fork along the double helix [16]. The progressive movement of the fork
is not uniform, and the size of the fork changes all the time. Using the statistical mechanics
method [3] it is shown that unzipping fork is occasionally blocked and this is the reason of the
force growth on the peaks. After that a cooperative process of base pairs opening takes place
which corresponds to the forward movement of the unzipping fork and the descent of the peak.
Our estimates (Fig.2) show that the probable length of the cooperative opening of DNA sites
is in the range of several hundred pairs. At the same time in [3] the possible mechanism of the
fork blocking and, as a result of the peak occurrence, is considered to be the heterogeneity of
the macromolecule. But it should be noted, that heterogeneity can manifest itself in scale of
several base pairs and can not be significantly noticeable on such big scales as several hundreds
base pairs. As it will be shown in Sec.3, the presence of peaks may occur due to the coil-like
tertiary structure of the closed part of DNA double helix in solution.
Thus, our analysis shows some important features of the DNA unzipping process, such as a
difference between the critical opening forces for the two parts of λ-phage DNA, the presence
of peaks and their shape characterize the unzipping process. These features require detailed
physical explanation to understand all of the stages of the DNA unzipping process.
5
Figure 3: Base pair twist — the reason of the DNA double helix rotation during unzipping
process.
3
3.1
Scenario of the DNA unzipping process. Some estimations
Mechanism of the peaks occurrence on the unzipping curve.
Let us consider the detailed shape of the force-distance curve in the plateau area. This section
will show how to explain a scenario of the DNA unzipping process using the experimental
results shown on Fig.2.
As the plateau consists of peaks, to understand the unzipping process scenario, let us
consider the mechanism of peaks occurrence in detail. As it is known from the early study [28],
the DNA unzipping process is accompanied by rotation of the double helix around its axis.
Molecular dynamics methods [29] showed that this rotation happens due to the fact that the
projection of each subsequent couple on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the double helix,
is turned on an angle with respect to the previous (Fig.3). As it was already mentioned the
unopened part of the DNA double helix has a coil-like shape in solution (Fig.1). So according to
this scenario this coil must rotate during the unzipping process. At the beginning the tension
that occurs in the DNA site situated between the fork and the coil is not enough to rotate
the coil, but when the force reaches some threshold value, the coil is rotated and the tension
disappears. From simple hydrodynamic considerations we can determine on which parameters
the force required to rotate the coil at a certain angular velocity depends. The radius of the
coil is given by:
R=
p
2Llp ,
(2)
where L is the contour length, and lp = 50nm is the persistent length of DNA [30].
For simplicity we consider the coil as a smooth ball. Torque that should be applied to the
ball of radius R in order to rotate it in the medium of a dynamic viscosity coefficient µ with
the angular velocity ω, is as given by [31]:
|M | = 8π∗9.81µωR3 .
(3)
F ∼R2 ∼L .
(4)
As M = FR,
6
Figure 4: Degrees of freedom of nucleic bases in a pair of nucleotides (both movements take
place in the plane of a pair): a) ‘stretch’ pathway b)‘opening’ pathway.
Since the contour length of the double helix decreases with the DNA opening, so this
force, and therefore the peak height should decrease. This decrease in peak height is currently
observed on the unzipping curve. While the peak height depends on the force of a coil rotation,
the peak length is defined by other parameters. On the peak ascent unzipping fork is blocked [3],
so the ascent length is mostly determined by the extension of single strands (Fig.1). The length
of the descent is determined by the number of opened pairs.
The presence of peaks is also observed in the unpeeling process, when the force is applied at
one end to one of the strands of the double helix, and at the other end both strands are fixed [32].
However, in the force-distance curve there are significant differences from the unzipping process.
Firstly, the peak height increases at the end of the opening of λ-DNA. Secondly, compared with
the unzipping process the height of peaks is much bigger. These features may also be connected
with the coil mechanics. Unlike the unzipping process, coil size increases with opening of the
double helix, so the height of peaks increases with the DNA opening. Significantly bigger peaks
height (order of magnitude more than in the unzipping process) may occur due to the fact that
in this process a coil rotates not around its own axis but around the axis of the helix, that
significantly increases the hydrodynamic friction force.
These facts indicate that the presence of peaks on the force-distance curve of the DNA
unzipping process can be related with the hydrodynamics of a coil-like tertiary structure of the
DNA double helix in solution. Since a force required for rotating of this coil is proportional to
the contour length of DNA in a coil (4) and in the experiment [15] (Fig.2) the long(≈50000bp) λDNA is used for studying, this coil can play a significant role in the process of DNA unzipping.
So coil mechanics can be the main reason of unzipping fork blocking mentioned in [3] and
consequently of the peak occurence on the force-distance curve (Fig.2).
3.2
The possible pathways of the DNA unzipping process
Opening of nucleic base pairs can take place along different pathways [33]. Among them the
most probable for the DNA unzipping process [23,29] are the ‘stretch’ pathway, when bases in a
pair separate from each other along hydrogen bonds (Fig.4a), and the ‘opening’ pathway, when
base pairs open into a groove (Fig.4b). Here all motions take place in the plane of a pair [29].
Let us consider that the process of base pairs opening may take place according to two
scenarios: Watson-Crick pair opens along the ‘stretch’ pathway (Fig.5b) or Watson-Crick pair
firstly transits into ‘pre-opened’ metastable state along the ‘opening’ pathway, and then fully
opens along the ‘stretch’ pathway (Fig.5a).
As it was shown in Sec.3.1, this coil can play a significant role in the process of λ-DNA
7
Figure 5: Two possible scenarios of nucleic base pairs separation in DNA unzipping process: a)
separation along the ‘stretch’ pathway from the state which is pre-opened along the ‘opening’
pathway; b) direct separation along the ‘stretch’ pathway.
unzipping. Base pair transition into a metastable state can occur in the area between the
unzipping fork and a coil under the tension that creates external force from the one side and a
coil from the other (Fy component on Fig.1). Under the influence of this tension double helix
is stretched in this area, resulting in the weakening of stacking interactions between adjacent
pairs, which mostly determines the stability of the double helix [13]. This allows base pairs to
transit into the ‘pre-opened’ metastable state along the ‘opening’ pathway. This conformational
transition in the area situated between the unzipping fork and a coil is natural due to the
geometry of our system. So we consider that this transition does not require much energy and
estimate the opening energy from the ‘pre-opened’ to the ‘opened’ state in this scenario. The
existence of such a ‘pre-opened’ metastable state is shown in the works [23, 34, 35, 37].
Let us make some qualitative estimations of the energy required for base pair transition
from Watson-Crick state to the opened state for A·T and G·C base pairs. In our estimations
we consider that in the ‘opening’ pathway the rotation of bases takes place around the axis
passing through the atom C10 perpendicular to the plane of the base (Fig.6). As the ‘stretch’
pathway we consider a motion of bases in a pair relative to each other along the line connecting
the C10 atoms (Fig.6).
Let us define the parameters of these processes. We consider that the state becomes to
be ‘pre-opened’ when the external hydrogen bond of a pair is broken (N6 H ••• O4 for A·T
and O6 ••• HN4 to G·C), i.e. the distance between the heavy atoms (N or O) and hydrogen
atom reaches the value of the sum of their van der Waals radii. As the van der Waals radius
of hydrogen atom is ≈1.2Å, nitrogen and oxygen are ≈1.5Å [38], this distance will be ≈2.7Å.
Taking into account that the length of the covalent bond N-H ≈1Å [30], hydrogen bond will be
broken when the distance between heavy atoms reaches ≈3.7Å. We consider that the full base
pair opening takes place when the middle hydrogen bond (N1 ••• N3 ) is broken [10], i.e. the
distance N1 N3 ≈3.7Å. The estimations made in this section take into account only one degree of
freedom: rotation of bases in a pair (‘opening’ pathway) or movement of bases relative to each
8
Figure 6: Schematic representation of the adenine-thymine nucleic base pair in DNA macromolecule: a) Watson-Crick configuration [30]. The arrow shows the ‘opening’ pathway: the
bases rotation around the axis passing through atoms C10 perpendicular to the plane of the
pair; b) ‘pre-opened’ A·T pair mediated by the water molecule [34].
other along the hydrogen bonds (‘stretch’ pathway). However, in the experiment the movement
along this pathways may take place involving other degrees of freedom (‘twist’, ‘propeller’,
‘buckle’, etc. [33]), which are not considered here to simplify the calculations because our aim
is only to give the understanding of the physical mechanisms which take place in the DNA
unzipping process.
To estimate the hydrogen bond stretching energy in Watson-Crick base pairs we use atomatom potential functions method. Here we consider the pairwise interactions between the atoms
which form hydrogen bonds. The energy of the hydrogen bond between atoms i and j is modeled
by modificated Lennard-Jones potential [39]:
U (rij ) =
−Aij
Bij
+ 12
10
rij
rij
(5)
Parameters Aij and Bij are also taken from [39], and for H ••• N are AHN = 9100 kcal∗Å10 /mol,
BHN = 27400 kcal∗Å12 /mol, and for bond H ••• O AHO = 7350 kcal∗Å10 /mol, BHO = 21400
9
Table 2: Parameters for A·T and G·C Watson-Crick pairs. The hydrogen bond distance values
and R distances are taken from [30]. The angles α1 , α2 and binding energy E are calculated in
this paper.
N6 H ••• O4 (A·T) N1 ••• HN3 (A·T) C2 H ••• O2 (A·T)
O6 ••• HN4 (G·C), N1 H ••• N3 (G·C), N2 H ••• O2 (G·C), R, Å α1 , grad α2 , grad E, kcal/mol
Å
Å
Å
A·T
3.0
2.9
3.4
10.44
53.7
59.0
-4.72
G·C
2.9
3.0
2.9
10.72
58.4
56.5
-7.07
Table 3: Estimated in the present work distances and opening energies for pairs which are
opening according to two scenarios: ‘stretch’ and ‘stretch after opening’ .
A·T
G·C
A·T
G·C
N6 H ••• O4 (A·T) N1 ••• HN3 (A·T) C2 H ••• O2 (A·T)
O6 ••• HN4 (G·C), N1 H ••• N3 (G·C), N2 H ••• O2 (G·C), R, Å E, kcal/mol
Å
Å
Å
‘stretch’
3.7
3.6
4.2
0.8
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.7
0.8
6.4
‘stretch after opening’
4.2
3.7
4.04
0.5
1.7
4.1
3.7
3.7
0.4
2.0
kcal∗Å12 /mol. Geometry of Watson-Crick pairs A·T and G·C is taken from [30]. For the A·T
pair R distance between atoms C10 is taken 10.44 Å, the angles between the glycosidic bond
and R (α1 and α2 ) are calculated from the condition that Watson-Crick A·T pair in the closed
state has the distance N6 H ••• O4 of the value 2.9 Å, and the distance N1 ••• HN3 is 2.8
Å. For the pair G·C estimates are made in the similar way (see. Tabl.2). For A·T pair the
shortened contact C2 H ••• O2 is taken into account, which is also simulated by the potential
(5).
Opening energy (EAT , EGC ) is considered to be the difference between the energy of WatsonCrick configuration (energy minimum) and the configuration when central hydrogen bond is
broken (Fig.7, red points). It should be noted that energy estimates in the present work are
the same order of magnitude that obtained in the work [39, fig.3, curve 2].
As the result of the calculation (Tabl.3), the A·T pair opening energy for ‘stretch’ scenario
AT
AT
is Estr
≈ 4.0kcal/mol, and for ‘stretch after opening’ Eso
≈1.7kcal/mol . At the same time
GC
for the G·C pair corresponding value for the ‘stretch’ scenario is Estr
≈6.4kcal/mol, and for
GC
the ‘stretch after opening’ Eso ≈2.0kcal/mol . That is to open a pair according to the ‘stretch’
scenario, it is required about 2-3 times more energy than to open it by ‘stretch after opening’
scenario. Also our estimates show that the opening of the G·C pair by the ‘stretch’ scenario
needs ∆Estr ≈2.4kcal/mol more energy (see. Tabl.3) than opening of the A·T pair. At the same
time, in the ‘stretch after opening’ scenario this difference is reduced to ∆Eso ≈0.3kcal/mol.
So the pair opening by the ‘stretch after opening’ scenario is much more energetically favorable
than by the ‘stretch’ scenario. And heterogeneity plays a much less important role in the
‘stretch after opening’ scenario, than in the ‘stretch’ scenario. So in the ‘stretch after opening’
scenario the process of consequent base pairs opening can flow cooperatively.
10
Figure 7: Binding energy dependencies from distance calculated for A·T (dashed line) and G·C
(solid line) base pairs for ‘stretch’ scenario. EAT , EGC - calculated opening energies as the
difference between the Watson-Crick configuration (minimum) and configuration when central
hydrogen bond (N1 ••• N3 distance) reaches 3.7 Å (red points), ∆E = EGC − EAT .
11
Table 4: Our calculations of the value ∆E = EGC − EAT , corresponding force differences ∆F
measured by the method described in [3] and the corresponding experimental difference ∆Fexp .
∗
estimated from DNA melting experiments (Tabl.1), ∗∗ estimated from the experiment [15].
∆E, kcal/mol ∆F, pN
‘stretch’
2.4
16
‘stretch after opening’
0.3
2
∆Fexp , pN
7-12∗
1∗∗
Now let us find out how our estimated energies fit to the experimental data (Fig.2). Let
us start with the ‘stretch’ scenario. In the experiment (Figs.1,2) energy of the double helix
opening is the work of external forces to pull the ball to some distance l. And the opening force
can be calculated by formula (1). Opening energy of the double helix is the sum of the pair
opening energy (Epair ) and the elastic energy of two single strands (2Eel ) [3]. In the paper [3] it
was estimated the total value of single strands extension for the average force of ≈13pN , which
is l = 9.5Å. Since Eelast for the opening of poly-A·T and poly-G·C chains are approximately
the same, we have ∆F str ,so = ∆E str ,so /l. So we have a value ∆F str ≈16 pN, and ∆F so ≈2pN .
As it was mentioned in Sec.2, the experimental force difference between two plateaus on the
force-distance curve, which corresponds to the difference between A·T and G·C opening forces,
has a value ∆F exp ≈1pN (Tabl.4). Apparently, the value is much closer to the value ∆F ,
calculated for DNA melting process, while the value ∆F so is close to the observed value in
the experiment [15]. It suggests that base pair opening in the unzipping of λ−phage DNA
experiment at low pulling speeds [15] can take place not according to the ‘stretch’ scenario, but
according to the ‘stretch after opening’ scenario.
4
Discussion and Conclusions
According to our estimations the mechanism which is proposed here describes the DNA double
helix unzipping process that can take place according to two different scenarios.
The first from them (‘stretch after opening’) is connected with the base pair transition into
the ‘pre-opened’ metastable state along the ‘opening’ pathway (Fig.5b), the second is the direct
extension of the hydrogen bonds along the ‘stretch’ pathway (Fig.5a).
As the frequency of the bases vibrations in a pair along the ‘opening’ pathway (∼20cm−1 )
is lower than along the ‘stretch’ pathway (∼100cm−1 ) [36], in the first scenario bases in a pair
need more time to separate and the first scenario is more probable to take place at low pulling
velocities. It should be noted that the transition into metastable state can occur because of the
structural changes of the DNA site situated between the unzipping fork and the dsDNA coil
(Fig.1). As the result of our estimations it is shown that the experimental difference between
two plateaus on the force-distance curve of the λ-DNA unzipping with low pulling velocities is
connected with the realization of the ‘stretch after opening’ scenario.
In the works [23, 34] it is shown that the ‘pre-opened’ metastable state can be formed with
the participation of water molecules (Fig.6b). It should be noted that our estimations for
the difference in opening energies between A·T and G·C pairs for ‘stretch’ and ‘stretch after
opening’ scenarios ( ∆E str and ∆E so ) are also appropriate for transition from the state where
water is integrated to the external hydrogen bond (N6 H•••O4 for A·T (Fig.6) and O6 •••HN4
for G·C) [34, fig.4]. This is because the contribution from interaction of atoms forming the
12
outer hydrogen bond with a water molecule is the same for A·T and G·C base pairs. Further
the process of base pairs opening along the ‘stretch’ pathway can take place cooperatively.
Cooperativity can emerge because the energy difference for further opening between A·T and
G·C pairs (∆E so ) is very smal (Tabl.4, ‘stretch after opening’). About the cooperativity of
the unzipping process in this scenario argues the smooth descent of peaks on the force-distance
curve (Fig.2) as well.
It is known that the unzipping fork is being blocked from time to time during the unzipping
process that results in the peak occurrence on the force-distance curve [3]. In the present study
it is shown that the reason of its blocking is the absence of the conditions of its propagation
along the site situated between the fork and the dsDNA coil. This conditions are created after
base pair transition into the ‘pre-opened’ state in this site.
At high pulling speeds (>1µm/sec) the process becomes to be non-equilibrium, about what
argues the hysteresis occurrence on the force-distance curve [17]. In this case the rotational
friction torque starts to play a significant role [8, 17] and pairs do not have time to transit into
the metastable state. In this case only the second scenario can take place when base pairs open
along the ‘stretch’ pathway which has much higher vibrational frequency than the ‘opening’
pathway. The difference between the two plateaus on a force-distance dependence of the λphage DNA should be much bigger than in the first scenario (Tabl.4). The unzipping of short
DNA hairpins can also take place according to this scenario because the values of the difference
between opening forces of short poly-A·T and poly-G·C hairpins (Sec.2) and the ∆Fstr (Tabl.4)
are similar.
As it is seen from the experiment, in natural conditions the process takes place with small
velocities (≈10bp/s) [41]. Thus the ‘stretch after opening’ scenario is more probable to take
place during the real in vivo unzipping processes such as transcription and translation.
References
[1] S.B. Smith, L. Finzi, C. Bustamante Direct mechanical measurements of the elasticity of
single DNA molecules by using magnetis beads, Science 258, 1122-1126 (1992).
[2] R.M. Simmons, J.T. Finer, S. Chu, J.A. Spudich Quantitative measurements of force and
displacement using an optical trap, Biophys. J. 70, 1813-1822 (1996).
[3] U. Bockelmann, B. Essevaz-Roulet, F. Heslot DNA strand separation studied by single
molecule force measurements, Phys. Rev. E 58(2) 2386-2394 (1998).
[4] R. Lavery, A. Lebrun, J.-F. Allemand, D. Bensimon, V. Croquette Structure and mechanics
of single biomolecules: experiment and simulation, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, 383-414
(2002).
[5] C. Bustamante and D. Keller Scanning force microscopy in biology, Phys. Today 48(12),
32-38 (1995).
[6] C. Bustamante, S. B. Smith, J. Liphardt, D. Smith Single-molecule studies of DNA mechanics, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10(3), 279-285 (2000).
[7] C. Bustamante, Z. Bryant, S. B. Smith Ten years of tension: single-molecule DNA mechanics, Nature 421, 423-427 (2003).
13
[8] M. Manghi, , N. Destainville Physics of base-pairing dynamics in DNA, Phys. Rep. 631,
141 (2016).
[9] R. Owczarzy, Y. You, B.G. Moreira, J.A. Manthey, L. Huang, M. A. Behlke, J. A. Walder
Effects of Sodium Ions on DNA Duplex Oligomers: Improved Predictions of Melting Temperatures, Biochemistry 43, 3537-3554 (2004).
[10] M.D. Frank-Kamenetskii, S. Prakash Fluctuations in the DNA double helix: A critical
review, Phys. Life Rev. 11, 153-170 (2014).
[11] R.M. Wartell, A.S. Benight Thermal denaturation of DNA molecules: a comparison of
theory with experiment, Phys. Rept. 126 (2), 67-107 (1985).
[12] K.J. Breslauer, R. Frank, H. Blocker, L.A. Marky Predicting DNA duplex stability from
the base sequence, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83, 3746-3750 (1986).
[13] P. Yakovchuk, E. Protozanova, M.D. Frank-Kamenetskii Base-stacking and base-pairing
contributions into thermal stability of the DNA double helix, Nucl. Acids Res. 34(2), 564574 (2006).
[14] M. Rief, H. Clausen-Schaumann, H.E. Gaub, Sequence-dependent mechanics of single DNA
molecules, Nat. Struct. Biol. 6, 346-349 (1999).
[15] B. Essevaz-Roulet, U. Bockelmann, F. Heslot Mechanical separation of the complementary
strands of DNA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11935-11940 (1997).
[16] U. Bockelmann, B. Essevaz-Roulet, F. Heslot Molecular Stick-Slip Motion Revealed by
Opening DNA with Piconewton Forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79(22), 4489-4492 (1998).
[17] Ph. Thomen, U. Bockelmann, F. Heslot Rotational Drag on DNA: A Single Molecule
Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(24), 248102 (2002).
[18] U. Bockelmann, Ph. Thomen, B. Essevaz-Roulet, V. Viasnoff, F. Heslot Unzipping DNA
with Optical Tweezers: High Sequence Sensitivity and Force Flips, Biophys. J. 82, 15371553 (2002).
[19] U. Bockelmann, P. Thomen, and F. Heslot Dynamics of the DNA Duplex Formation Studied by Single Molecule Force Measurements, Biophys. J. 87, 3388-3396 (2004).
[20] U. Bockelmann, V. Viasnoff Theoretical Study of Sequence-Dependent Nanopore Unzipping
of DNA, Biophys. J. 94, 2716-2724 (2008).
[21] J.M. Huguet, C.V. Bizarro, N. Forns, S.B. Smith, C. Bustamante, F. Ritort Single-molecule
derivation of salt dependent base-pair free energies in DNA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
35, 15431-15436 (2010).
[22] N.K. Voulgarakis, A. Redondo, A.R. Bishop, K.. Rasmussen Probing the Mechanical Unzipping of DNA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 248101 (2006).
[23] S.N. Volkov, A.V. Solovyov, The mechanism of DNA mechanical unzipping, Eur. Phys. J.
D 54, 657-666 (2009).
14
[24] M. Peyrard, A. Bishop Statistical mechanics of a nonlinear model for DNA denaturation,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2755-2758 (1989).
[25] C. Danilowicz, Y. Kafri, R.S. Conroy, V.W. Coljee, J. Weeks, M. Prentiss Measurement of
the Phase Diagram of DNA Unzipping in the Temperature-Force Plane, Phys. Rev. Lett.
93, 078101 (2004).
[26] J. SantaLucia A unified view of polymer, dumbbell, and oligonucleotide DNA nearestneighborthermodynamics, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95(4), 1460-1465 (1998).
[27] J. Liphardt, B. Onoa, S.B. Smith, I. Tinoco Jr., C. Bustamante Reversible unfolding of
single RNA molecules by mechanical force, Science 292, 733-737 (2001).
[28] C. Levinthal, H. Crane On the unvinding of DNA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 42 436-438
(1956).
[29] S.N. Volkov, E.V. Paramonova, A.V. Yakubovich, A.V. Solovyov Micromechanics of base
pair unzipping in the DNA duplex, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, 1-6 (2012).
[30] M. Egli, W. Saenger Principles of nucleic acids structure, Springer (1984).
[31] N.A. Slezkin Dynamika viazkoj nezhimaemoj zhidkosti, Moskov 184-186 (1955).
[32] P. Gross, N. Laurens, L.B. Oddershede, U. Bockelmann, E.J.G. Peterman, G.J.L. Wuite
Quantifying how DNA stretches, melts and changes twist under tension, Nat. Phys. 7,
731-736 (2011).
[33] R.E. Diekmann Definitions and nomenclature of nucleic acid structure parameters, EMBO
8(1), 1-4 (1989).
[34] E.S. Kryachko, S.N. Volkov Preopening of the DNA Base Pairs, Int. J. Quantum Chem.
82(4), 193-204 (2001).
[35] S.N. Volkov, A.V. Solovyov To the understanding of phase diagram of DNA double helix
unzipping, Biophys. Bull. 19(2), 5-12 (2007).
[36] S.N. Volkov, A.M. Kosevich Theory of Low-Frequency Vibrations in DNA Macromolecules,
J. Biomolec. Struct. Dynamics 8, 1069-1083 (1991).
[37] S.N. Volkov Priodkrytoye sostoyaniye dvoynoy spirali DNK, Mol. Biol. 29(5), 1086-1094
(1995).
[38] U.V. Zefirov, P.M. Zorkyi Van-der-Vaalsovy radiusy atomov v krystallokhimii i strukturnoy
khimii, Zhurnal strukturnoy khimii 15, 118-122 (1974).
[39] V.I. Poltev, N.V. Shulyupina Simulation of interactions between nucleic acid bases by
refined atom-atom potential functions, Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics
3(4), 739-765 (1986).
[40] F. Ritort Single-molecule experiments in biological physics: methods and applications, J.
Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, 531-583 (2006).
[41] D. S. Johnson, L. Bai, B.Y. Smith, S. S. Patel, M. D.Wang Single-Molecule Studies Reveal
Dynamics of DNA Unwinding by the Ring-Shaped T7 Helicase, Cell 129, 1299-1309 (2007).
15